[Foundation-l] Grants -- a proposal

Sun Jun 19 11:48:49 UTC 2005

On 6/19/05, daniwo59 at aol.com <daniwo59 at aol.com> wrote:

First, let me tell Danny how great I find this proposal. My experience
in charitable organisations has led me to realize two things:
1- Donors indeed, do like to know where their money is going, it
comforts them in giving over and over again.
2- Contributors also like to know that their efforts are being
recognized and that what they do is supported not only by the
"administration", but also by other people out there. Earmarking
different projects actually allows them to go on in their projects and
participate to the general purpose where they might not if they're
never heard and never taken into consideration.

On the other hand, the distinctions in donations also prove that we
know where we're going and that we are indeed "organised" and take
care both of our goals and our donors.

> I dont think we really disagree, except in terms of allotment. As I
> mentioned in my previous email, there will certainly be a general fund to cover
> operational costs. In fact, we should encourage people to donate to that, in
> addition to the ten percent from other projects that I propose. Furthermore,  this
> is talking about smaller donations, whereas larger donations will be the
> subject of a second email in a day or two.

> 
> As for the ten percent number, admittedly that was random, but it is based
> on some realities. In general, Overhead costs range from 8-15 % in grants,
> though i have seen as low as 0 % and as high as 20 %. I am proposing a
> compromise for small donors, so that they feel that their money is going where  they
> want. For instance, if I want to give 25 euros to Guako, I want to know  that at
> least _most_ of that money reaches him. 50 % would cause me some  concern.
> Nevertheless, I do feel that the 10% I suggested is negotiable. I would  like to
> hear what other people say as well.

I am all in favour of 10%. It also allows people who give to make sure
that the projects they are supporting will still exist since some of
their money goes into servers and bandwidth.  Well presented, this
figure makes a lot of sense.

> I think that operational costs should take top priority. 
[snip]
>> I am not sure that the two are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, I think  this
>> will encourage more people to give to something. As Wikipedia continues to
>> grow, actual running costs will be much higher than small donations can  hope
>> to cover.

I agree with Danny. Many people don't give because they don't exactly
know what they give for. The first step to implementation of course
goes through better communication from us of what the money given to
general purposes has been used for. In the longer term, we will
probably rely on steady grants type donations to cover the costs of
running operations, and little donations will be just a "bonus" on top
of those, which will allow us to pursue our more general goal, ie.
spread free knowledge etc.

> My other concerns are usability-related. I think if we do this,  we need
> to plan the implementation properly. I'd be glad to assist with  that,
> though not immediately (perhaps after Wikimania there will be some
> time). In fact, I can envision this to eventually become a project of
> its own and extend beyond Wikimedia's own needs, to fund open source
> development and free content. But that's very long term thinking  (years).
> Before we hit long term, I'd like to concentrate on immediate implications.
>> Personally, I think that if we start soon, we may even be able to cover some
>> funding for Wikimania.

Agreed with Danny. And to address Anthere's concern earlier in this
thread, I imagine something like radio buttons allowing the donators
to give to the "budget" they want to, making it easy both for the
donator and the people who behind the scenes have to know where the
money goes. A great thing would be to be able to have by each
"project" its budget value and a changing figure which tells donators
how far from the goal that project is.

Finally, to address Angela's concern, maybe we should find a better
name than "projects" for those "things" we are talking about, not to
mix them with Wikimedia projects. Actions? Community actions? Anything
but *projects* would be fine I suppose.

Cheers,

Delphine
-- 
~notafish